Social and economic development of underdeveloped & developing countries bringing about an equitable growth eradicating the poverty, hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy and providing the poor better livelihood options...

Dear Readers,Please Give Comments, Like and Send in Facebook, Subscribe this via RSS or E mail. Become a follower of this site through Google Friend Connect or Google reader or Blogger.... Feel free to email me at sadhubani@gmail.comfor anything...

People’s movements, civil society organizations,
academic thinktanks, and progressive political leaders will have to lead the way,
both by resisting today’s destructive processes and by building on existing alternatives

India’s
attempts at integrating environmental sustainability into economic planning have so far been piecemeal and
hesitant. They have done little to stem the rapid slide into ecological
devastation and consequent livelihood, cultural, and economic disruption. At
the root of this lies the stubborn adherence to a model of economic growth that
is fundamentally unsustainable and inequitable, even more so in its
‘globalised’ form in the last two decades.

The
12th Plan process could have been an opportunity to change course, specially
given its explicit commitment to sustainability, inclusiveness and equity.
Indeed there are some glimpses of a different approach, e.g. making economic activities
more responsible in their use of resources and in the wastes they produce,
promoting urban water harvesting and public transport, providing organic inputs
to agriculture use, encouraging recycling, making tourism more environmentally
responsible and community-based, moving towards low-carbon strategies, and protecting
the ‘commons’ (lands and waters that are used by the public), giving
communities more secure rights to use and manage these. Yet the Plan falls far short of significant reorientation, mostly staying within the
confines of assuming that more growth will help achieve these goals. It does
not use any available framework of ‘sustainable development’, including
the targets that India agreed to at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development
(Johannesberg). It does not contain indicators to gauge whether India is
moving towards sustainability, e.g. improvement in per capita availability of
natural forests, reduction in the levels of various kinds of pollution,
improved access to nutritious food and clean water, or enhanced availability of
public transport. Environmental considerations do not yet permeate each
economic sector.

There
is in fact a palpable lack of urgency with regard to the ecological crisis we
are already in. Natural ecosystems are under stress and decline across most of
the country; some 10% of the country’s wildlife is threatened with extinction;
agricultural biodiversity has declined by over 90% in many regions; well over half
the available waterbodies are polluted beyond drinking and often beyond even agricultural
use; two-thirds of the land is degraded to various levels of sub-optimal
productivity; air pollution in several cities is amongst the world’s worst; ‘modern’
wastes including electronic and chemical are bring produced at rates far exceeding
our capacity to recycle or manage. Annual Economic Surveys of Government of
India, and the Ministry of Environment and Forest’s annual State of Environment
reports occasionally acknowledge the widespread environmental damage; more is found
in independent reports such as the State of India’s Environment reports by
Centre for Science and Environment. A 2008 report by the Global Footprint
Network and Confederation of Indian Industries suggests that India has the
world’s third biggest ecological footprint, that its resource use is already
twice of its bio-capacity, and that this bio-capacity itself has declined by
half in the last few decades.

Economic
globalisation since 1991 has significantly increased rates of diversion of
natural ecosytems for ‘developmental’ purposes, and rates of resource exploitation
for domestic use and exports. Climate change impacts are being felt in terms of
erratic weather and coastal erosion, and the country has little in the way of climate
preparedness especially for the poor who will be worst affected. Projections
based on the historic trend of materials and energy use in India also point to
serious levels of domestic and global impact on the environment, if India
continues its current development trajectory modeled on already industrialized countries.

One
opening provided by the 2013 Economic Survey towards redressing the situation
is the following paragraph: “From India’s point of view, Sustainable Development
Goals need to bring together development and environment into a single set of targets.
The fault line, as ever in global conferences, is the inappropriate balance
between environment and development…we could also view the SDGs and the post
2015 agenda as an opportunity for
revisiting and fine-tuning the MDG
framework and sustainably regaining focus on developmental issues.”

Framed
in 2000, the MDGs set a ambitious target for tackling hunger, thirst, illiteracy,
women’s exploitation, child mortality, disease, and environmental destruction.
They are supposed to have guided the developmental and welfare policies and
programmes of governments. Countries are individually, and collectively through
the United Nations, reviewing progress made in achieving the MDGs. Simultaneously
discussions have been initiated towards new ‘development’ frameworks that could
more effectively lead to human well-being while ensuring ecological
sustainability. India too needs to engage in a full-scale review of its
achievements (or failures), which can become an opportunity to work out a new
framework for the post-2015 process, best suited to Indian conditions. Here are
some ideas on what such a framework could look like.

Elements of a New Global Framework

A
fundamentally different framework of well-being has to be built on the tenets
of ecological sustainability, as much as of equity. This is clearly pointed to in
the outcome document of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development
(‘Rio+20’) of 2012. A new set of global goals could include:

(1)Ensuring
ecological conservation and resilience, and the basis of equitable access to
nature and natural resources to all peoples and communities (respecting
nature’s own rights) (an expansion of current MDG 7);

(2)Providing
adequate and nutritious food for all, through production and distribution systems
that are ecologically sustainable and equitable (currently part of MDG 1);

(3)Ensuring
adequate and safe water for all, through harvesting and distribution systems
that are ecologically sustainable and equitable (currently part of MDG 7);

(4)Safeguarding
conditions for prevention of disease, and maintenance of good health, for all,
in ways that are ecologically sustainable and equitable (currently partly in MDG
6)

(5)Providing
equitable access to energy sources in ways that are ecologically sustainable (as
much as technically and economically viable) (currently missing from the MDGs);

(6)Facilitating
equitable access to learning and education for all, in ways that enhance ecological
sensitivity and knowledge (as much as cultural, technical, technological,
socioeconomic, and other aspects) (an expansion of MDG 2);

In
all the above, the special needs of women and children will need to be secured,
through rights-based and empowerment approaches (currently in MDGs 3,4,5).

Such
a framework needs to be based on a set of universal principles, including:

ØThe
functional integrity and resilience of the ecological processes and
biological diversity underlying all life on earth, respecting which entails
a realization of the ecological limits of human activity, and enshrining the right
of nature and all species to survive and thrive in the conditions in which
they have evolved.

ØEquitable
access of all people, in current
and future generations, to the conditions needed for human well-being (socio-cultural,
economic, political, ecological, and in particular food, water, shelter, clothing,
energy, healthy living, and socio-cultural sustenance); equity between humans
and other elements of nature; and social, economic, and environmental justice
for all.

ØThe right
of each person and community to participate meaningfully in crucial decisions
affecting her/his/its life, and to the conditions that provide the ability for such
participation, as part of a radical, participatory democracy.

ØLinked
to the above, governance based on subsidiarity and ecoregionalism, with local
rural and urban communities (small enough for all members to take part in
face-to-face decision making) as the fundamental unit of governance, linked with
each other at bioregional, ecoregional and cultural levels into landscape/seascape
institutions that are answerable to these basic units.

ØThe responsibility
of each citizen and community to ensure meaningful decision making that is
based on the twin principles of ecological integrity and socio-economic equity.

ØRespect
for the diversity of environments and ecologies, species and genes,
cultures, ways of living, knowledge systems, values, economies and livelihoods,
and polities, in so far as they are in consonance with the principles of
sustainability and equity.

ØCollective
and co-operative thinking and working founded
on the socio-cultural, economic, and ecological commons, respecting both common
custodianship and individual freedoms and innovations within such
collectivities.

ØThe
ability of communities and humanity as a whole, to respond, adapt and sustain
the resilience needed to maintain ecological sustainability and equity
in the face of external and internal forces of change.

ØThe
inextricable interconnectedness amongst various aspects of human
civilisation, and therefore amongst any set of ‘development’ or ‘wellbeing’ goals:
environmental, economic, social, cultural, and political.

A Framework for India

Following
from the above, the following goals would comprise a new sustainability
framework of planning for India:

Macro-economic
policy: The macro-economic
framework must be radically altered to put ecological sustainability, human
well-being, and socio-economic equity at the core. This would include development of
macro-economic theories and concepts that put at their core the twin
imperatives of ecological limits and socioeconomic equity. It would also entail reorienting financial measures such as taxation, subsidies, and other fiscal incentives/disincentives to support ecological sustainability and
related human security and equity goals. A long-term national land and water
use plan needs to be framed, based on decentralised and participatory
processes. Also needed are human well-being indicators, through appropriate tools,
to replace the current GDP and economic growth-related ones.

Political
governance: Equally
important as above, a new polity is needed. Principles and practice of radical or participatory
democracy need to infuse all decision-making, with the smallest rural and urban
settlements as the basic units, and landscape level institutions building on
these. Panchayat, urban ward, and tribal council institutions would need not
only strengthening but modifications to ensure they are functioning at these
basic units in which all residents/members can take part. Ways to ensure
accountability of representatives (e.g. through right to recall) at larger
levels, upto the national level, have to be built in. An immediate step could
be creating institutions of independent oversight on environmental matters,
such as an office of an Environment (or ‘Sustainable Well-Being’)
Commissioner who has a Constitutional status similar to the CAG or Chief
Election Commissioner.

Safeguarding
the natural basis of life: The
integrity of natural ecosystems, wildlife populations, and biodiversity must be
safeguarded, by
reducing and eventually eliminating resource and biodiversity loss, and regenerating
degraded eco-system and populations. This would include providing rights to
nature and nonhuman species in the Constitution; expanding the coverage of
areas specially dedicated to or helping to achieve biodiversity conservation through
fully participatory and democratic means; integrating conservation principles
and practices in land/water use activities across the board, in both rural and urban
areas; and phasing out the use of chemicals in agriculture, industry, and
settlements, that lead to irreversible ecological degradation and the poisoning
of wildlife.

Ensuring basic needs for
all: All
people must have access to safe and adequate resources to fulfill basic needs,
in ways that are ecologically sustainable and culturally appropriate. This includes safe and adequate drinking water
to all, largely through decentralised harvesting and distribution systems; safe
and adequate food to all, focusing primarily on agro-ecologically sound practices
and localized production/distribution systems including localized procurement for
the Public Distribution System and other food schemes for the poor; unpolluted
air and safe sound levels for all; safe, adequate and sustainable shelter/housing
to all, facilitating community-based, locally appropriate methods; energy
security for all, optimizing existing production sources and distribution
channels, regulating demand (denying, especially, luxury demand), and focusing
most new production on decentralised, renewable sources; and adequate sanitation
facilities to all families and communities.

Ensuring
universal employment and livelihoods: All families and communities must have access to
dignified livelihoods that are ecologically sustainable and culturally appropriate.
This includes encouraging natural resource based livelihoods (forest-based,
fisheries, pastoralism,
agriculture, crafts, and quarrying)
that are already ecologically sustainable; replacing unsustainable, unsafe and
undignified livelihoods in all
sectors by dignified, ‘green’ jobs (which according to ILO would yield more
employment than conventional sectors); and investing heavily in livelihoods relating
to ecological regeneration and restoration.

Ensuring
sustainable production and consumption: All production and consumption must be
ecologically sustainable and socio-economically equitable, using a mix of
incentives and disincentives. This means converting and replacing unsustainable
agricultural, fisheries,
mining, industrial, and other production processes to sustainable ones;
ensuring extended producer responsibility for sustainability at all stages from
raw materials to disposal/recycling/ reuse, through incentives and legislation;
curbing unsustainable consumption including advertising that encourages such consumption
(perhaps creating an ‘Above Consumption Line’ measure as counterpoint to ‘Below
Poverty Line’ measure; encouraging innovations in, and making mandatory the use
of, technologies of sustainability including those that reduce resource-intensity
of products and processes, and discourage (eventually eliminating) those that are
inherently unsustainable and inequitable; and moving towards a zero-waste
society.

Ensuring
sustainable infrastructure: All
infrastructure development must be ecologically sustainable and
socio-economically equitable. This
entails integrating practices of sustainability into existing infrastructure, replacing
unsustainable practices with sustainable ones (e.g. focus on public instead of
private transportation); and ensuring all new infrastructure is built on principles
of ecological sustainability.

Ensuring
sustainability in services and welfare: All service and welfare sectors must
integrate principles and practices of ecological sustainability. Health services should focus on
preventing ill-health due to environmental degradation (e.g. unsafe or inadequate
food and water), and on curative practices that are ecologically sound
(including nature-based indigenous systems). Local and wider ecological, cultural,
and knowledge systems need to be integrated into education policies and
practices, ensuring that ecological sensitivity becomes a part of every
subject. Tourism and visitation need to be converted to practices that are ecologically
sustainable, culturally appropriate, and local community driven. Each of these
goals will contain specific
targets and actions, and indicators
to assess levels of success
and failure. A set of tools are also needed that can help in the assessments. There
are already several sets of indicators and tools being used or proposed around
the world (including within India), from which we could develop a set of
indexes that is robust, relatively easy to calculate, amenable to public
understanding and participation, and capable of integrating complexity and nuances.
Some of the exciting new work being done outside India, such as the Happy
Planet Index proposed by the New Economics Foundation, Bhutan’s Gross National
Happiness , Environment Vulnerability Index, and others could be
examined. Tools such as Ecological/Carbon Footprints, National Accounts of
Well-being, Environmental Accounting and Budgeting, and so on could be combined
to assess progress towards sustainability and equity. But this should not
simply become an exercise in numerical target-setting, and mechanical enumeration
of what targets have been met; it needs to integrate into a holistic vision
that has sustainability, equity, and wellbeing as its pillars.

Overcoming the hurdles

There
are several hurdles to achieving the above: inadequate understanding of the
impacts of human activities on the environment, continuing tension between various
knowledge systems hampering synergistic innovation, a political leadership that
for the most part lacks ecological literacy, unaccountable corporate and
military power, and a feeling of ‘helplessness’ or apathy amongst the general
public.

If
we are to surmount these hurdles, we have to support and learn from
alternatives already existing on the ground or in policy, in India or globally.
Information already available on trends in sustainability and unsustainability should
be collated, and further information
generated to fill gaps in understanding.
Public discussions and consultations, involving all sections and in particular
local communities in rural and urban areas, should be initiated on the contours
of a new framework of well-being. Such a framework should underlie the 13th
5-Year plan.

Of
course, this will not happen if left to today’s political and bureaucratic
leadership, though undoubtedly their role is vital. Most crucial is public and
political mobilization and pressure. People’s movements, civil society organizations,
academic thinktanks, and progressive political leaders will have to lead the way,
both by resisting today’s destructive processes and by building on existing
alternatives. Partnerships with similar sectors in other countries will help.

India
already has thousands of initiatives at solving food, water, energy, health and
other problems through sustainable means; it also has crucial policy breakthroughs
like the Right to Information Act. But these are dispersed and often isolated,
not yet forming a critical mass sufficient to bring about fundamental changes
in the system. A framework vision of the kind outlined above is beginning to emerge
from, and could help bind together, these currently dispersed processes.

By : Ashish Kothari The author is Founder-member of Indian environmental
group Kalpavriksh, and coordinated India’s National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan process, has served on Greenpeace International and India Boards,
He is also the author or editor (singly or jointly with others) of over 30
books, the latest a detailed analysis of globalisation and its alternatives.